Menu

Ewan Morrison – YES: Why I Joined Yes and Why I Changed to No

Four months ago I joined the Yes camp out of a desire to take part in the great debate that the Yes camp told me was taking place within their ranks. Being a doubter I thought maybe I’d failed to find this debate and that it was exclusive to the membership of the Yes camp, so I joined hoping I could locate it and take part. But even as I was accepted into the ranks – after my ‘Morrison votes Yes’ article in Bella Caledonia, I noted that 5 out of the meagre 20 comments I received berated me for either not having decided sooner or for having questioned Yes at all. Another said, and I paraphrase: ‘Well if he’s had to mull it over he could easily switch to the other side.’ That comment in Bella Caledonia worked away at me like a stone in my shoe. Beneath it, I realised, was a subconscious message: ‘Now that you’re in with us you have to toe the line – ask questions about Yes and you’re out.’

Within the Yes camp I attempted to find the revolutionary and inclusive debate that I’d heard was happening. But as soon as I was ‘in’ I was being asked to sign petitions, to help with recruitment, to take part in Yes groups, to come out publicly in the media, to spread the word and add the blue circle Yes logo to my social media photograph – even to come along and sing a ‘Scottish song’ at a Yes event. I declined to sing but I went along to public meetings and took part in debates online. I noticed that the whenever someone raised a pragmatic question about governance, economics or future projections for oil revenue or the balance of payments in iScotland, they were quickly silenced by comments such as “We’ll sort that out after the referendum, this is not the place or the time for those kinds of questions”. Or the people who asked such questions were indirectly accused of ‘being negative’ or talking the language of the enemy. There was an ethos of “Shh, if you start asking questions like that we’ll all end up arguing (and that’ll be negative) so in the interests of unity (and positivity) keep your mouth shut.”

It was within a public meeting that I realised there was no absolutely no debate within the Yes camp. Zero debate – the focus was instead on attacking the enemy and creating an impenetrable shell to protect the unquestionable entity. In its place was a kind of shopping list of desires that was being added to daily. So there was: Get rid of Trident, raise the minimum wage, lower corporation tax, promote gay and lesbian rights, create a world leading Green economy, exploit oil to the full and become a world leading petro-chemical economy, nationalise the banks, nationalise BP, be more attractive to foreign investment. The shopping list of ‘positive’ ideal goals could never tally up, the desires of the Yessers were incompatible and contradicted each other, but to raise this was seen as being ‘negative’. Every kind of Yes had to be included, and this meant there could be no debate. Instead there was a kind of self-censorship and conformism. The Yes camp had turned itself into a recruitment machine which had to silence dissent and differences between the many clashing interest groups under its banner. This was what YES had started to mean – it meant YES to everything – everything is possible – so don’t question anything. You couldn’t talk about what would happen after the referendum because then all the conflicts between all the different desires and factions would emerge. Questioning even triggered a self-policing process – The Yes Thought Police – rather like the Calvinist one in which doubters started to hate themselves and became fearful of showing signs of their inner torment. I have witnessed some of the greatest minds within Scotland go through this process, one week they are vocally discussing complex issues of global capitalism and the next they’re posting ‘selfies’ of teenagers waving flags and photos of cute puppy dogs carrying Yes signs in their mouths. The conformist dumbing down has been acute and noted by those outside Scotland who wondered where all the intellectuals went.

The Yes movement started to remind me of the Trotskyists – another movement who believed they were political but were really no more than a recruitment machine. I know because I was a member of the SWP in the late 80s. As a ‘Trot’ we were absolutely banned from talking about what the economy or country would be like ‘after the revolution’; to worry about it, speculate on it or raise questions or even practical suggestions was not permitted. We had to keep all talk of ‘after the revolution’ very vague because our primary goal was to get more people to join our organisation. I learned then that if you keep a promise of a better society utterly ambiguous it takes on power in the imagination of the listener. Everything can be better “after the revolution”. It’s a brilliant recruitment tool because everyone with all their conflicting desires can imagine precisely what they want. The key is to keep it very simple – offer a one word promise. In the case of the Trotskyists it’s ‘Revolution,’ in the case of the independence campaign it’s the word ‘Yes’. Yes can mean five million things. It’s your own personal independence. Believing in Yes is believing in yourself and your ability to determine your own future. Yes is very personal. How can you not say Yes to yourself? You’d have to hate yourself? Yes is about belief in a better you and it uses You as a metaphor for society as if you could simply transpose your good intentions and self belief onto the world of politics. The micro onto the macro. Yes is a form of belief – and this is the genius of the Yes campaign: they’ve managed to conflate personal self-determination with state power – to shrink the idea of the state down to the self and the question of the future down to ‘belief in the self.’You wouldn’t want to repress yourself and you personally want to be independent in your own life so, the Yes logic goes you should ask the same of your country. Every economist has told us that you cannot transpose the micro-economics of your home onto the globe – that micro and macro are different worlds, with different rules, but Yes has managed to blur the two to say ‘your country is you.’ Your country is an extension of your own personal desires. As the ubiquitous campaign slogan runs ‘Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands’ – and to reinforce the domestic personal motif the image is that of a newborn – a perfect new self.

The Yes camp have managed to make it seem like criticism of their politics is an attack on the individual’s right to imagine a better self. To do this, the Yes campaign has had to be emptied of almost all actual political content. It has had to become a form of faith.

And it’s not surprising – there is no way that the groups under the banner of Yes could actually work together; they’re all fighting for fundamentally different things. How can the Greens reconcile themselves with the ‘let’s make Scotland a new Saudi Arabia’ oil barons? How can the radical left reconcile themselves with the pro-capitalist Business for Scotland group? Or the L.G.B.T Yes Youth community find common cause with elderly Calvinist nationalists or with the millionaire SNP donor who backed Clause 28. Instead converts chant the same mantra – YES – to cover all the cracks between their mutual hatred. Debate becomes reduced down to one word and the positivity of that one word erases all conflicts and questions beneath a fantasized unity. YES. Yes also erases history, politics and reality. Yes means too many things and ends up meaning nothing. It’s silenced the conflicting politics within it to the point that it means little more than the euphoric American self-help phrase “be all you can be.”

Now some may say – ah yes but Yes is a rainbow coalition – the very essence of democratic pluralism. But you have to ask yourself with so many groups all tugging in so many directions what makes a separate Scotland any different from the rest of the UK with its democratic conflicts, its mess? Democracy is a daily struggle, an ongoing fight to reconcile differing opinions and ideologies, of contesting facts and plans and shouldering the burdens we inherit from history. It’s hard, it’s exhausting, it’s frustrating and it’s all about compromise.So why do we need to leave the union to engage in this painful process we call democracy?

The answer is that the factions within the Yes camp are all dreaming that they will have more power in the new Scotland ‘after the referendum.’ Bigger fish in the smaller pond. The Greens will have more power than they ever could in the UK. Business leaders will have more influence over Scottish government. The hard left will finally realise its dream of seizing power and creating a perfect socialist nation. Each group is dreaming of this fresh new country (as clean as a white sheet, as unsullied as a newborn) in which they themselves dominate and hold control. Clearly these groups can’t all have more power and the banner they share is a fantasy of a unity that is not actually there. It’s a Freudian slip when converts claim that the first thing that will happen ‘after independence’ is that the SNP will be voted out – it betrays the fantasy that each interest group has of its own coming dominance.

Many people are voting Yes just to express their frustration at not being able to engage with politics as it is. They’re voting Yes because they want their voice to be heard for the first time. That’s understandable and admirable, but Yes is not a debate or a democratic dream, it’s an empty word and an empty political process which means dream of what you want and express it with all the passion in your heart. The dream will die as soon as the singular Yes gets voted and Scotland then turns into a battleground of repressed and competing Yesses. Once the recruitment machine has served it purpose it will collapse and the repressed questions will return with a vengeance.

I left the Yes camp and joined the No camp not because I like the UK or think the status quo works well as it is. No. I think things are as complicated and compromised as they always are and that we live in trying times. The Yes camp understand that and so have created an illusion of a free space in which everything you’ve ever wanted can come to pass – overnight. How can it? There are exactly the same political conflicts within the factions of Yes as there are within the UK. After a Yes vote the fight for control of Scotland will begin and that unity that seemed like a dream will be shattered into the different groups who agreed to silence themselves to achieve an illusion of an impossible unity – the kind of unity you find in faith, not in politics. What makes this worse than remaining in the UK is that Scotland will be fighting out its internal battles on a world stage after demonstrating it intends to run its new politics on an illusion of unity, a unity that breaks up even as it is observed.

Post navigation

403 comments

as someone who’s come a long way to ‘yes,’ i can agree that the campaign’s biggest weakness has been to promise too hastily to too many different groups… it’s pure politics and personally disappointing…

but we should keep at heart the question we are being asked “should scotland be an independent country?”

i firmly believe scotland *can* be, based on the success of similar-sized countries, based on the fact that smaller countries have more representative democracies and are more progressive… i am not under the illusion that there will be no challenges, nor that it will be a utopia… it will take work, but i have confidence that we have the will and capacity for that work…

morrison is right that the ‘yes’ campaign has drawn such a rainbow of groups, and that it is impossible that every ‘yes’ voter will get their way… on september 19th, if we vote ‘yes,’ the debates will begin again– what kind of scotland do we want? and this referendum debate has proven that, when offered a real democratic choice, we are a nation of passionate, thinking citizens, who can come together (mostly) civilly to thrash out what’s best for our country… i look forward to those debates continuing under a ‘yes’… my biggest worry for a ‘no’ is that we’ll be told to shut up and eat our cereal, and leave the decisions to our betters, as we always have…

From Enlightenment to Entitlement
If Scotland votes “Yes” on 19 September no-one is going to be happy: the millions who, like me, will feel our proud British nationality and history has been ripped from us. The disadvantaged will be outraged and potentiallly violent when they find out the promised £5000 of benefits and other electoral bribes will disappear with the cuts to balance the books. The RUK will be incandescent at the arrogance and theft of a country refusing its £130bn share of UK debt; meat and drink to the Johnsons, Farrages and English nationalists who will force the next RUK Government to drive a very hard bargain. The only ones who will never admit their shame, guilt and bewilderment will be the deluded far left intellectuals and Blame and Entitlement zealots who represent the crazy core of whipped up nationalism poisoning my country. The same thrawn inferiority complex fuelled the disastrous Darien project which drove us into the arms of England and ironically gave us the best 300 years of our history. We are facing another Darien, but John Bull won’t be there to pick up the pieces this time.

Complete rubbish. You can’t use words like ‘no-one’ is going to be happy. As we have just seen from the outcome of the votes, only half wouldn’t be happy. The other half, which I am part of, is now utterly gutted, devastated and deflated that we never made it. History never disappears – you could’ve still be proud of your history. And actually, for a lot of our history Scotland was either fighting to be free of English rule or was actually independent.

What a load of codswhallop! You love your words old boy, pity there is no real meat behind the sinew that binds them. You refer to a history over three centuries ago however fail to look closer into the last thirty years where Margaret Thatcher used Scotland as a political testing ground for class acts such as poll tax, miners strike and well, flick a page of real history why don’t you?

@ ”if Scotland votes(shouldn’t that be ‘vote’ as Scotland is singular’?) “Yes” no-one is going to be happy – what kind of statement is that?

The millions? I like your exaggeration here, it reeks of ‘how big was your fish you caught’ and smells just as bad

Scotland are more than well equipped to take on the burden of debt, we’ve been clearing it up for ages. Indeed, the fiscal studies in 3 years since 2007/8 showed we returned £4bn every year whilst the English sucked us dry with their £24 bn in the red

You just weakened a nation old boy, your banal vote just blew out the light bulb moment of historical change and left us in the dark ages where the words rape and pillage socially will come back to haunt you from a tory/labour/lib-dem government stand point

If you votes- sorry voted, this week purely on spec of pounds to pocket, David Cameron will be dipping them for years to come and you better have deep pockets too

Illegal Wars, killing families you never knew, hey babies also!
Funding illegal immigrants who use the law to well, swell our national debt(London alone has over the last 5 years allowed over 1million immigrants into her house which we Scots pay for)AND also the 3 naturally rich energy resources

I would go on but your attention span at this point will be found in the bowl you swim in so I will leave it here

Just know this, in the history of political life, no leader/s have ever come to Scotland and attempted to sway the Scottish people of their right to vote independently

In my opinion, they should of never been allowed because of its very nature however they and the other tossers like JK Rowling, The Queen, Barack ‘I kill babies for a living’ Obama and even Bill ‘ suck me off under the WH table while my missus isn’t watching’ Clinton got in on the act too

Scotland is no longer, your, sorry – you’re part of that and in the coming years I will judge you and hold you to account for the arse bending you served upon us with the vote you chose

Yours is an appeal to history, nostalgia even. The thing about history is that it’s in the past. And most of the things older people look back on are fast disappearing from the UK. The welfare state, free education and so on, the Post-war Consensus. Scots on the whole still have this belief that the state exists for the benefit of the people, a view widely held in many developed countries. It’s the Westminster parties, pandering to London and ‘middle England’ who have departed from this notion, even to their eternal shame, the Labour Party. So nostalgia for the Empire or WWII will just not wash, and indeed is meaningless for most of the young. The No side had nothing positive to offer, no real arguments, morally bankrupt. They were obliged to create and then exploit uncertainty over currency, the EU etc., and when all else failed resort to a bizarre “Good Cop / Bad Cop” act of threats and appeals. Their final performances when they realised Yes might win, were pathetic beyond belief.

Did we see the No’s dancing in the streets after their victory? No! That side of the campaign had no heart. To get its narrow majority it relied on muddled, uninformed and frightened people. For the Yes side, especially the young who had grasped at the chance to shape an new nation, the result produced a wave of stunned dejection. That perhaps should have broken the movement or reduced it to factions set against each other. But that didn’t happen, perhaps helped by the internet and social media, people quickly realised they were not alone. They shared their pain and despair and a deep bond was forged. Within literally a couple of days the movement was healed and stronger than ever. Thousands of people have already joined the SNP, Scottish Greens and the lesser pro-indy parties. Galvanised might be too weak a description. There are defections from Labour and predictions of a wipe-out at next year’s general election. There are 1.6 million very angry, very determined Scots to reckon with, plus all those who will soon see that the Westminster parties are unwilling and incapable of fulfilling their ‘vow’. They’ll be up in arms too. No one, least of all a Scot, likes to be made a fool of.

If you have no hope, no vision, no future, then I pity you. But please don’t despise those who do, who have put the heart back into politics. We will succeed and Scotland will be reborn as a better nation.

The trouble for both sides is that no one can either predict or control the future,all they can do is negotiate it and respond to it on behalf of each other and tried to build something with whatever materials they have.Since westminster has proven to be very poor at building any sort of society which cares for others in a sustained logical and human manner,its obvious that Scotland with a half decent vision of the future will be more successful,because it has more people who are willing to do it. Only after gaining independence do we have permission to do so and only then can we seek consensus on the way forward,by setting our own constitution as a framework for this project.otherwise we remain tied to a westminster that is in a London bubble about to burst and out of touch with the realities of life faced by its citizens,in the form of food banks poverty etc.

‘otherwise we remain tied to a westminster that is in a London bubble’

What do you actually mean by this?

Last time I looked London as a city was distinctly left wing in political terms. Especially in the more central parts. London includes some of the most deprived areas in the country. It is nearly impossible to live in London without seeing this poverty.

If the UK as a whole voted as London did at the last election, the Tories would not now be in power. And UKIP knows it has no chance in London.

I am guessing you don’t get to London much? The age old illusion that the streets are paved with gold is as strong as ever it would seem. But it can only endure from a distance.

To conflate London the place with the political bubble of Westminster is common fallacy but a fallacy all the same.

Attack the politics not the place. London is not your enemy nor your friend. It is a city. And one that may (or may not) be much closer to you in its politics than you imagine.

Of course Scotland could be an independent nation. It used to be, until it went bankrupt. It could be again, but the road would be long and hard. It would not suddenly turn into Norway overnight – think Ireland after 1922. It would face at least a generation, maybe more, of economic hardship before it could even hope to get where it is now. That this has not been spelled out is the problem. It may be that those who wish to forge a new nation are willing to accept hardship and sacrifice – but it’s wrong to allow them to believe it would not be needed.

Nor is there any necessary relationship between size and the quality of the democracy on offer. Small countries such as Bahrain and Qatar are hardly known for democracy. The relevant factors are history and the equality of the society. Becoming independent won’t change either.

Sadly, too much of the recent campaigning has been as short on civilised debate as it has been on facts. If you do not agree with the majority in an independent Scotland, the odds are that you will be told to shut up, with a brick through your window to emphasise the point. Can’t see that as an improvement, myself.

The only intimidation I’ve heard of has come from Unionist gangs. Who has had a brick through their window? If you can’t cite examples then you’re just scaremongering and that hardly contributes to ‘civilised debate’ does it? It would be pointless to threaten No voters, because we need them to change to Yes voters. They are not the guilty parties, the blame lies with those who lied to them, confused and sometimes threatened them.

“If you do not agree with the majority in an independent Scotland, the odds are that you will be told to shut up, with a brick through your window to emphasise the point.”

And you can prove this? There are idiots on boths sides, remember Salmond and wee nicky got death threats? And do not forget this Brit Nazt thugs in Glasgow after the vote, disgusting. But thats the ugly face of British nationalism for you.

The ‘Yes’ vote is being carried on a wave of euphoric nationalist hysteria bereft of rational consideration of the consequences of the partition of the United Kingdom.

TV images of large ‘Yes’ political rallies with banners and marching bagpipes are reminiscent of film of the fascist rallies of 1930s Germany. Salmond’s tactic of generating this hysteria while blaming the social and economic ills of Scotland on the UK government and the Tory party is one successfully employed by fascism throughout history.

I don’t believe that the vast majority of ‘Yes’ or SNP voters have any fascist beliefs but then neither did the crowds that attended the 1930s rallies in Europe and Britain. History tells us that it is easy for people with the best of intentions to get swept up and conned by a movement that appears to promise a bright new future but masks something much darker.

Personally, I am deeply suspicious of a leader of a party that has already moved the control of the police from the regions to central government. I find it worrying that without consulting parliament this new police force began patrolling Scottish streets carrying weapons openly.

I get even more worried when I read in the press that Salmond is demanding a £10 billion share of armed forces from the rest of the UK if Scotland votes for independence. This ‘Scottish share’ of the UK armed forces is reported as consisting of aircraft, ships and the transfer of up to 9,200 regular and Special Forces troops.

It seems that Scotland is pretty much split 50/50 ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. If Scotland becomes a separate country, and the fears of the ‘No’ campaign are realised, then the social and economic upheaval that will follow will be as bad as anything in our history. Each side will then blame the other and Scotland (like the partitioned Ireland) could be in a very dangerous place indeed.

Let’s not forget that democracy and peace we enjoy as part of the UK is a precious and fragile thing and history has shown how easily that can be lost.

What democracy do we enjoy as part of the UK? Politics is dominated by 2 parties that are both in the pocket of a few private business interests. First past the post ensures that new parties cannot grow in influence and new ideas are stifled. At least with a YES there would be a chance of shaking up the current order, a chance at proportional representation, a chance for new ideas to be heard.

Also a chance of political intimidation and a chance of electoral fraud. Despite its faults the british democracy is one of the oldest and fairest in the world. There is nothing happening now that suggests an independent Scottish democracy would be any better. In fact, it is very likely to be the opposite.

Yeah. With Salmond being an open admirer of Putin, you gonna get a better democracy, you bet. I am waiting to see Scots asking for political asylum in the UK. That’s a view from Moscow, not from London. I simply know what trap you’re going to fall into.

So there’s no connection with Salmond and Murdoch? Salmond I and exact clone of these politicians, no different. Secret meetings. Grubby undeclared deals and lo! The Murdoch controlled Sun and even groundskeeper Wullie are suddenly pro yes?! Google his shady connections. He also spent thousands on keeping his lies about the “discussions” he said he had with European leaders out of the press (mosly fabricated or downright lies )so he paid lawyers to keep it buried. WAKE UP INDEED!

They were swallowing the darkness of the theory of “civic nationalism”. When explained to enquirers this turned out to mean being only for our already resident population, saying the entire indy project was for them, and being against all outsiders even including Scottish ones. It was a device to buy the anti-immigration vote of the the thuggish type of nat with a closed little community paranoid type of mind anti the whole world beyond the gate.
It was a fascist hate crime that they were intending not to give unrefusable citizenship of their own country to the Scots born in the diaspora as our emigrants’ offspring and not resident here on independence day. Jim Sillars told George Galloway his son might not get in, and told the large Yes meeting at Liberton school Edinburgh 7-5-14 with Colin Fox by his side that he wanted to filter them for skills the same as migrants with no roots here.
I petitioned the EU against accepting the legitimate existence of our state if it did this, breaking convention human rights article 8 on family life.

I’m sure you’re right that there has been a sense of ‘let’s get this over with first’ about the Yes camp, but certainly not among its supporters. However, I think that is valid. No-one is expecting a Scottish utopia, just a more democratic system (using PR) which will allow the variety of voices you describe to represent their constituencies. The Scottish Parliament has come up with policies which have diverged sharply from those at Westminster due the emergence of a pragmatic consensual politics. Many of the major policies came from the Scottish Socialists, for example, when they had but four MSPs.

It’s frankly absurd to suggest that because we don’t have a precise consensus in advance on policy we should allow Westminster to continue to put in place policies of which even most No campaigners are not in favour. I honestly can’t work out what your point is.

As a South African, I stopped when you said that PR was “more democratic”. PR is nothing but “less accountable”. My own countries experience clearly shows that when your position on the party lists is entirely down to how much the party likes you, you have no accountability to the electorate to represent their issues.

But the same applies to Yorkshire, for example. Are we therefore to disassemble the UK until we reach the point at which there will be no more selves to determine ? Has nothing been learnt from the post-Soviet dissolution ? Your wreckless pursuit of self-determination has yet come up against the British bulldog, whom I can assure you is a very ugly fellow indeed. The pound – forget it; dual citizenship – think again; renewable energy – unsustainable absent UK credits etc etc.

I’ve had lots of online arguments with people over the years. I’ve never been blocked by so many twitter users except on this issue. It isn’t the abuse that’s scarey. I’ve had very little abuse from the so called “cybernats”. What’s scarey is the silence. They cut you dead. The other day I retweeted an article mentioning Salmond’s admiration for Putin. Someone tweeted me that it was unfair to link them. So I sent them back an article about Samond and Putin on the BBC website. Immediately they complained the BBC was biased. So I said “Well, perhaps it is but leaving that aside are you saying the comments attributed to Salmond are true or false? Silence. Another correspondent told me they would no longer talk to me for linking to the “Tory Telegraph”. I pointed out that exactly the same information can be found in the Guardian. Silence. When I asked Greg Hemphill about the currency issue he said “The debate has moved on from this issue”. To which I said “No you want to move it on”. Silence.
This is why all forms of Nationalism are so dangerous. They submerge the identityhttp://www.pearshapedcomedy.com/Scotland.html

All forms of nationalism except British nationalism it would seem. Most English people say ‘England’ when they mean ‘Britain’ or the UK (GB+NI). So no one’s identity is submerged then? You’ve clearly never lived in Scotland or Wales (let alone Cornwall).

You can legitimately argue that Better Together’s pan-nationalism is as stupid as the SNP’s local nationalism but they are both stupid. Two stupids dont make a not stupid. And I dont need to go to Wales or Cornwall to comment on them (though I have been) as the theory of civic nationalism states we are all one society where ethnicity doesn’t matter.

I had the same dilemma as you did Ewan: how can Scotland resolve all these conflicting values? There’s no government on earth who can perfectly balance every citizen’s ideology. To want to acheive that is in fact more fanciful. Democracy is the most-embraced solution at the moment (by the West anyway).

I have come to a conclusion to myself that the difference you see in the Yes camp may not be as big as we perceive. The bottom line is, no matter you are on the left or on the right, people want to improve their quality of life materialistically and with self-respect. Just the route to it may vary.

As a foreigner living in Scotland for over 10 years, I noticed that many Scots although often say being proud to be Scottish, they live in the shadow of this Union. Their identity is even more blurred in the outside world. Many can’t figure out between Britain, Scotland and England. The Union is really Greater England. I agree that nationalism cannot solve all social issues. But I have never seen such a surge of self-confidence and self-assurance from the Scots since I have moved here. Reason is important. However, no one should under estimate the power of positive thinking. Instead of saying everything is “not too bad”, now they are confident to say “it’s wonderful”. How cool is that! I cheer for the Scots. I am sure the Scots will unleash this newly-found confidence and determination to make this country great and continue to contribute to the mankind, as they have done so over the centuries.

There’s a huge difference between a rational democracy and a populist one. The former is imperfect. The latter slides down to a totalitarian nationalism with the inevitability of a sunset. And yes, it rolls all the way down on the rails of good intentions and positive thinking.

Political change requires strength of purpose. Morrison was demanding answers to questions best negotiated painstakingly after referendum and wanting impossible answers in advance. You can’t vote based on whether you happen to like the campaigners! You could easily find equally annoying people on both sides. You have to have some guiding principles of your own which do not seem to be in evidence here from Mr Morrison…

I actually agree with most of what he’s saying. This will definitely be going on in in the yes camp, but what else would you expect from a campaign? We only need to look to America, listen to the nonsense that was promised with Obama, or even Bush for that matter. Those without power need to make promises of power, newer and better. It’s a sales pitch, but ultimately society remains society post election. This is the inevitability, hidden at the side, like a car salesman trying to sell you a tarted up banger

Where he fails, is in his presumption of our expectations, and our inability to see through the lies of what we’re being sold. I can only speak for myself, but I’m very aware that I’m not buying a brand new car. I don’t expect anything to change, it’ll maybe get worse, it’ll maybe get better. The only difference will be where the power lies. I knock on the doors of the Scottish parliament, they tell me to go see the folks at Westminster, then I’m told to go back to the folks in Scotland. A cycle of blame is created, a rather inefficient system. Not to say that breaking the cycle will change anything, or that it will be any different from the current infighting of political parties. The only difference is one door to knock on, hardly a utopia

The other problem with the article, is his missed opportunity of of creating a balanced piece of writing, which would have brought it to a more honest conclusion. He should have discussed his involvement, if he’s had any, within the no campaign. It would have been interesting, to see what his take is, on the Psychology of the no’s (sounds like invasion of the body snatchers or something)

Remove all the bluster and promises, and all you’re left with is a smaller country with the same problems, and one parliament. Sounds fine to me, that’s all I ask.

For real reform we’d need to change our entire way of governance. Not sure what that would be. But having a small handful of people making the decisions behind a veil, seems rather old fashioned. Maybe technology will be the answer, a phone app that lets people vote on a more regular basis, creating a hive mind. But would that be better? do people want to be that involved?

Are we evolving culturally? Humans started as individuals, then worked in tribes, then societies. Was this because of our inability to be civilized; survival through dominance. But as we learn to become more civilized, then is the natural progression to break back down into smaller groups, and eventually into the individual? Maybe this is the utopia mentality, and humans are actually fundamentally flawed. I realize I’m maybe talking nonsense now, but I’m just putting it out there.

In the mean time ‘vote YES, and all your wildest dreams will come true’ (Napoleon Dynamite, vote for pedro)

humans never started as individuals. 200,000 years ago is not relevant to tomorrow, however h.sapiens appeared in at least tribe-sized groups derived gradually from tribe-sized groups of our immediate predecessors and more or less stayed that way until agriculture permitted urbanism. civilisation, on the other hand, is submission to laws lest we be punished and is not an evolutionary trait. vis Croydon. when mobs rule, we are back to small tribe behaviour immediately. civilisation is a fragile veneer… apologies for the diversion but there is nothing more to be said on the big vote! if you haven’t worked it out by now, you shouldn’t be voting!

The trouble with the entire yes and no debate is that it seems to be entirely middle class. The undercurrent, undetectable by the Scottish intelligentsia, is that this is a working class movement, whether we are aware of it or not. I am sitting in a studio apartment with my dog and a bowl of cereal made from milk I stole from ASDA. By this point I assume you harbour an image of a bearded man, rolling tobacco stuck to his lips and a half can of tennents strewn across the floor. I am not however, I am a tall, handsome and charismatic individual who has been in employment since the age of 16. I don’t smoke, drink or take drugs and I am an exceptionally hard working individual. I have been made redundant twice, sacked, and forced to leave my recent place of work as a result of a motorbike crash during my probation period. I still await wages that I am owed. I have since gone to college to study and better my horizons for future employment and with the income from my bursary and performing in one of Scotland’s top function bands I cannot make ends meet. It’s hard for me. Probably the hardest it’s ever been. I have a little yes flag sitting on my window ledge and it offers me a glimmer of hope. That’s all, hope. I understand that this may be tarnished with romanticism and may continue to fuel your argument that the YES campaign has became a cult. Maybe your right. Maybe it has became a cult, but no more a cult than the privately educated schoolboys that are running the working class communities of this island into the depths of despair. And while myself and David Cameron both know that Scotland could prosper as an independent nation, I for one have nothing to lose. because when your stealing food to feed yourself and your beloved pet whilst your government are cutting taxes for the rich and introducing new ones for the poor, you’ve already lost. The other day my lecturer tried to convince everyone in the class to vote ‘no’ on the basis that he may lose £20,000 on the value of his house. The class room, made up of predominantly young, impressionable working class kids laughed at him and his complete detachment from reality. It was such a powerful moment, and I was so proud of the students who seemed more in touch with the affairs of our country than all of the no camp put together.

But your dismissal of your lecturer’s concerns only highlight your disconnect from his reality. No doubt at some point in his life he too will have been scraping for tuppence to rub together. He has come through that and worked hard enough to be concerned about the value of what is no doubt his main asset. To dismiss him as out of touch is to see the world from a very singular point of view.

As an aside I still find myself confused by the detest for David Cameron. His government has moved to balance the books, got the economy moving, reduced unemployment significantly, introduced gay marriage, and has allowed this referendum to occur and promised to abide by its outcome: I don’t think many if any other countries would countenance giving the people a vote such as this. For the record I am politically unaffliated and very much a floating voter (just not regarding Scottish independence as I have no say).

Try going to the bank with a bag full of pride…… Have you tried buying a telly with pride? Maybe buy a car. Pride will get you nowhere. Infact pride will hold you back. Some use pride is…….. And you were allowed to vote in a matter that would effect the whole of Scotland and the whole of the UK for tens of years and your contribution is pride… God help us.

Perhaps ‘confidence’ would be a better word than ‘pride’ which suggests arrogance. And btw money at the end of the day is just confidence, so yes you can bank it, the entire banking system is built on nothing more substantial than confidence.

The lecturer was abusing (or at attempting to abuse) his position of authority. If the market value of his house fell, so presumably would the value of all properties of that type across the country. But in any case he’d still have a house to live in. It would be no smaller or in a poorer condition than before. Houses should be for people to live in, not primarily an investment, a way of gaining wealth in comparison with those who don’t happen to own property. An overall fall in property prices would make it easier for first-time buyers and so contribute to a more equal society. Good quality research has shown that societies where the wealth gap is smaller are happier and safer places to live, even the rich are less stressed-out.

There are quite a few of these ‘convert’ propaganda pieces pretending to be authentic testimonials floating about. “I was Yes then I saw the light”. This one is better written but actually no more plausible than the rest. The “Yes is a cult” meme was launced a few weeks ago. I suppose it provides comfort for the uneasy consciences of No voters.

Why on earth should a no voter have an uneasy conscience? It’s Salmond & Sturgeon who should have the uneasy consciences on this issue with all the lies they’ve told. Not that Cameron/Clegg/Miliband are any better in general, but on this one they’re right (in my opinion) so I’m voting no with a clear conscience – and I am a Scot, born and bred – in fact I signed the claim of right back in the day, and would have voted for independence if it hadn’t been for seeing just how bad the MSPs and successive Scottish Governments have been.

But the same applies to Yorkshire, for example. Are we therefore to disassemble the UK until we reach the point at which there will be no more selves to determine ? Has nothing been learnt from the post-Soviet dissolution ? Your wreckless pursuit of self-determination has yet come up against the British bulldog, whom I can assure you is a very ugly fellow indeed. The pound – forget it; dual citizenship – think again; renewable energy – unsustainable absent UK credits etc etc.

Well at least we can be sure there wouldn’t be any Yes voters pretending to have once been on the No camp… oh wait! The whole point of making a case for a democratic vote is that people can make their own minds up and change them if they like. Why don’t you just accept that somebody may wish to vote for something you don’t want?!

Do the majority of voters really make their own minds up? Most listen to who they want to and let media snippets make up their minds. Only people who have nothing to lose would gamble their life’s wealth on an independent Scotland. Vote ‘Yes’ for mass suicide…..

One concern that does not seem to be raised anywhere is the change in the political landscape in Westminster that will occur should Scotland become independent. Presently, Scotland is responsible for sending about 40 Labour MPs to Westminster, 1 Conservative MP, 11 Liberal Democrats and a number of independent parties, notably 6 SNP.

I’m less concerned about the colour of the parties, so much as the disparity. For a parliamentary democracy to be function effectively, the opposition needs to be a credible force that can hold the executive to account. A significant shift too far will overly empower one side. (And please note, I would be just as concerned if an independent Scotland overly empowered the Labour party as well – it is not the policies that I am concerned with, so much as the accountability for these policies.) The referendum tomorrow will have ramifications far beyond the Scottish borders.

I’d like to hope otherwise, but there may be a contingent reading this that thinks “So what! Sod you, we’re independent!” The problem with this argument is that ignores the fact – regardless of any desire otherwise – that decisions made in Westminster *will* have an impact on Scotland, especially if there is as a currency union.

I actually agree with most of what he’s saying. This will definitely be going on in in the yes camp, but what else would you expect from a campaign? We only need to look to America, listen to the nonsense that was promised with Obama, or even Bush for that matter. Those without power need to make promises of power, newer and better. It’s a sales pitch, but ultimately society remains society post election. This is the inevitability, hidden at the side, like a car salesman trying to sell you a tarted up banger

Where he fails, is in his presumption of our expectations, and our inability to see through the lies of what we’re being sold. I can only speak for myself, but I’m very aware that I’m not buying a brand new car. I don’t expect anything to change, it’ll maybe get worse, it’ll maybe get better. The only difference will be where the power lies. I knock on the doors of the Scottish parliament, they tell me to go see the folks at Westminster, then I’m told to go back to the folks in Scotland. A cycle of blame is created, a rather inefficient system. Not to say that breaking the cycle will change anything, or that it will be any different from the current infighting of political parties. The only difference is one door to knock on, hardly a utopia

The other problem with the article, is his missed opportunity of of creating a balanced piece of writing, which would have brought it to a more honest conclusion. He should have discussed his involvement, if he’s had any, within the no campaign. It would have been interesting, to see what his take is, on the Psychology of the no’s (sounds like invasion of the body snatchers or something)

Remove all the bluster and promises, and all you’re left with is a smaller country with the same problems, and one parliament. Sounds fine to me, that’s all I ask.
For real reform we’d need to change our entire way of governance. Not sure what that would be. But having a small handful of people making the decisions behind a veil, seems rather old fashioned. Maybe technology will be the answer, a phone app that lets people vote on a more regular basis, creating a hive mind. But would that be better? do people want to be that involved?

Are we evolving culturally? Humans started as individuals, then worked in tribes, then societies. Was this because of our inability to be civilized; survival through dominance. But as we learn to become more civilized, then is the natural progression to break back down into smaller groups, and eventually into the individual? Maybe this is the utopia mentality, and humans are actually fundamentally flawed. I realize I’m maybe talking nonsense now, but I’m just putting it out there.

In the meantime ‘vote YES, and all your wildest dreams will come true’ (Napoleon Dynamite, vote for pedro)

While I understand where this guy is coming from, by that I mean, Yes to everything can’t work, everyone’s dream cant come true. I agree with that generally, of course it can’t. He joins YES campaigning and then attacks them, to be honest the guy sounds like he was trying to cause controversy. He says that YES campaigners would say “this is not the place or the time for those kinds of questions” quite frankly it wasn’t, that would have been suited to an actual debate. Right at the start he discusses a commenter on previous post, which says it looks like he still is undecided, I believe he was, so why was he busy signing himself up to promote the YES movement.

Moving on he seems to conclude “There are exactly the same political conflicts within the factions of Yes as there are within the UK” and therefore there is no point in voting YES because it would change anything, the fact Scotland’s politics however widespread is different to the UK. People are “voting Yes because they want their voice to be heard for the first time. That’s understandable and admirable” (direct quote). He says this is empty, a dream of what you want, its just personal self-to get what you want for Scotland. My question is what is so wrong with that? Voting YES is for radical change, for Scotland to be politically active in creating its own nation. Sure everyone wont get what they want, but the people of Scotland will decide that for themselves. How can you say NO to that?

“So why do we need to leave the union to engage in this painful process we call democracy?” Among a vast range of reasons, one stands painfully obvious. To have a say in our own affairs, Scotland simply doesn’t have equal democracy due to the Many (South England) vs. the Few (Scotland) scenario. Many Scots are put off even voting because of this, they see there is no point in it.

I am some naive dreamer that thinks that YES will turn Scotland into wonderland, like the writer suggests all YES voters are. I am a son of Scotland that wants a say on my country’s future, I understand there are some pitfalls, it could take years to sort of all of the nitty girtty politics. This is forever, Scotland will build on itself, there is no doubt we have that personal self-determination that the writer equates to nothing. We can make Scotland better than anyone else can, including Westminster.

I’m not qualified to debate whether independence will be right for you or not. However, as a person living in the “South of England” and categorically NOT one of the “many” referred to above, I am able to say with some certainty that the thought of the union breaking up leaves me dismayed, not only because I like us being one big diverse nation, but also for the reason that if you do decide to leave the union, then voting out the Tory government is going to be one hell of a lot harder. Of course, why should you care as you wave us goodbye with a cheery “get tae fuck”?

I would like to suggest to the ‘Yes’ voters of Scotland that they should take a look around the world at other countries who have become independent of the UK over the years and ask them how they now feel. Many wish they were back under the wing of the mother hen. Jamaica was glad to go when they had their Bauxite and could look after themselves, now I have heard from Jamaicans that they would be better off under the UK. The Kenyans the same, a go-ahead country in Africa at the time of independence, now a mess. I have heard from the Guyanese that at least they got their streets of Georgetown washed at night under UK rule and would be better off back in the fold. Take care what you wish for Scotland and whatever you do do not listen to the likes of Alex Salmond and his political cronies. Think for yourselves. Northern Ireland does not want to leave the union for the simple reason that it just has to look at the continuously struggling country that is the Republic of Ireland on its doorstep and tied to the apron strings of Europe. Check how many people of that country come north for employment, to carry out business, and their weekly shopping. None go the other way. Aye, have a look around this little world and think.

How can you compare Scotland with these countries? It just shows there’s a lack of knowledge in the wealth of Scotland. I have a friend living in Dublin. It’s true that people do go shopping in the north, but then shoppers from the Northern Ireland also come down to the south as well. This is not an evidence to demonstrate the economic strength of a country. As far as I know, the Republic of Ireland is doing quite well. I have faith in Scotland’s rich resources, pragmatic attitude, innovative thinking and well developed education, which produces fine citizens. Scotland will thrive!

Thanks for this. You have spelled out the discomfort I have felt whilst listening to the debate. I cannot vote although some of my family can. Yes has failed to tackle people’s concerns and any objections have been labelled as “scaremongering”. The people of Scotland deserved a proper debate rather than a “it will be alright on the night” response to some of these issues.

Hi Ewan, an interesting piece. I, like many others, have skepticism on both sides of the debate. However, I disagree with the overall sentiment that dissension isn’t tolerated. That may be within SNP ranks, or such like, but for myself (and for most people I know that are voting yes) they have similar legitimate concerns, queries and questions about independence. And to infer that ‘yessers’ are akin to a cult, with blind faith, is downright offensive.

What about Academics for Yes? What about Business for Yes? What about Jim Sillars going on TV and publicly coming out for a Scottish currency, disagreeing with the ‘vision’ which you’ve come to think of as an “empty word and an empty political process”?

So you don’t like the fanatics. Fine. They’re public meetings are more like rallies. Fine. So why don’t you look at academic sources? There’s plenty literature on both sides to make an informed choice. (you can start here if you want: futurelearn(dot)com/courses/indyref)

From what I’ve seen, and read in the comments here, most people who want yes want the decisions (whatever they may be or become) to be made in the a government based in Scotland. That’s it. No blind faith to currency, trident, or whatever else. There’s an election in 2016 where each party will set out their mandates (because it will take more than amount of time to figure all this out) and you can pick the ‘vision’ of Scotland you best like out of that lot.

You’ve argued “But you have to ask yourself with so many groups all tugging in so many directions what makes a separate Scotland any different from the rest of the UK with its democratic conflicts, its mess? Democracy is a daily struggle… it’s all about compromise. So why do we need to leave the union to engage in this painful process we call democracy?”. Well the logical answer is that it’s not so ‘different’. Independent Scotland would have just as many factions, groups, parties as a non-independent one. But if you live somewhere where the majority party in Scotland, isn’t the majority party in rUK, for at a minimum of half the time, then how is that so democratic? By logical deduction you need to become independent to ensure the democratic choices people make are adhered to. And why is the ‘vision’ of a Scottish democratic ‘mess’ so infantile to a UK democratic ‘mess’?

“There are exactly the same political conflicts within the factions of Yes as there are within the UK. After a Yes vote the fight for control of Scotland will begin and that unity that seemed like a dream will be shattered into the different groups who agreed to silence themselves to achieve an illusion of an impossible unity – the kind of unity you find in faith, not in politics.” The only unity that people have is of self-determination and self-governance. That’s all.

To argue that “The Yes camp understand that and so have created an illusion of a free space in which everything you’ve ever wanted can come to pass – overnight. How can it? ” is to fundamentally misinterpret the true feelings of the majority of yes voters. And only listen to the slogans (that both sides deploy).

Thanks – this article has given me insights which confirm concerns I had about the Yes Campaign. As an immigrant from Germany and living in Scotland for the past 14 years I have been given the right to vote and as someone who takes her democratic responsibility seriously I will go to the ballot tomorrow – but with an uneasy feeling. As someone who has spent most of her life in a divided country, who has a deep mistrust towards nationalism and who associates herself with social democracy, pacifism and internationalism I find it difficult to take a straightforward decision. In the 70s and 80s, among us supporters of anti-imperialism, environmentalism and multiculturalism, it was unthinkable to associate ourselves with nationalist ideas. Unable to shake this notion off I couldn’t help feeling that there was something not quite right about the Yes Campaign (although I was re-assured from many sides that the nationalism of the SNP “has nothing to do” with other forms of nationalism past or present – which may well be the case). The article has spelt out for me what is “not quite right” and I am grateful that I found it. Having said all that – of course I am not only uneasy about being included in the vote but also grateful because it made think more deeply about my place in my new home.

Provincial loutism is the foundation of all breakaway nationalism. Blindingly obvious, I know, but universally ignored in all independence movements. Such movements are always peopled by the earnest true-believers whose certainty is so fixed that introspection is impossible. With both eyeballs unified into one socket, they plow forward.

It is rather like religion in its intensity of certainty. All things shall be healed, all things shall be made better with the coming. Light will shine down upon us all, and my unpleasant neighbor’s dog will metamorphose into a gold butterfly. Bread and wine shall be free to all, and wages shall be leveled so the rich make the same as the poor.

If Scotland genuinely want independence to form an intelligent government akin to that of the viking territories, then I hope they can achieve it and awaken people to the inevitable failures of corporate run countries. It didn’t, however, take much for Donald Trump to purchase the politicians and then destroy an area of rare habitat for a coastal golf course, completely ignoring public petitions and protest. You can’t clean with a dirty cloth. Do you trust your politicians?

Given the argument put forward in this article, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are star spangled, zionist gloves on the hands puppeteering and funding this disruption. An experienced German journalist highlights these intentional disruptions quite well here:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWL9c_CELYo

Like many no voters, you’ve spectacularly missed the actual point of an Independence referendum. It asks a simple question, do you want to be self-governed? This isn’t an election, sides don’t have a manifesto. Why would somebody who doesn’t believe in the fundamental concept of Independence from the outset join a campaign for yes? They aren’t a political party.

You should look at the rise of Clive Palmer in Australia, a billionaire who started his own party and pumped millions into advertising for his candidates. He promised everyone, everything with no chance of delivery and the knowledge he would not have to deliver. His candidates did not attend their own victory rallies and he only attends parliament when there is an issue that will directly affect his own business interests. He got there on the dissatisfaction of the Australian voters on the available parties and is essentially Australia’s version of Donald Trump !

I have no personal on either a yes or no vote, but if you vote Yes then do so for the right reasons and if the result is yes – I’d like to see the Queen become the Queen of Scotland and let William take over as King of England.

Reblogged this on Myriad Shades of Gray and commented:
Very interesting article. I’ve heard similar from the people I know in the Parti Quebecois. It’s discomforting how much idealism can resemble less popular forms of governance.﻿

As a Trotskyist and someone who was also a member of the SWP in the late 1980s I have to say I do not recognise Ewan’s comparisons here – although no doubt it went down well with the readership of the Daily Mail, where this piece was first published.

In fact, far from ‘banning’ people from talking about what happens ‘after the revolution’, John Molyneux (a leading member of the SWP) published a book called “The Future Socialist Society” which was all about what things might be like in a true socialist society. I don’t mind people disagreeing with such views but why try and make out that even discussion was ‘not allowed’?

No doubt there are people so impatient for the change that they want that they are intolerant of the ‘doubters’ – they are mistaken as their attitude can turn people off – so what! get over it – I would console someone who was new to political dialogue and explain why that is a common thing in campaigns and struggles – but someone who confesses to be experienced in such matters should know better.

As for the comments about the disparate groups in the Yes campaign – here is one thing they seem to have in common, by and large they look like they are on the left. When it comes to the No campaign a far more motley crew of people who would never see eye to eye on any subject appear to be ‘together’ (refer to the Trafalgar Square rally).

When it is, in fact, this simple:
Aye = the dawn – the beginning of a new era;
Nay = the dusk – the end of discussion.

What many Scots did not realize is that their “No” vote would mean the end of everything, whereas their “Yes” vote would mean a mandate for further negotiations.

The “No” campaign was crass and dumb. It was more about bullying and fear mongering than about rational discussion.

To be fair, we would like to hear more about his experience with those supposedly “prolific” and “profoundly enlightening” debates in the “No” camp, when he got so enchanted by it…!

(Or was he just trolling?)

“Better together”, as this very slogan suggests, was not a platform for the reportedly “badly needed debate” – for Ewan Morrison would not find it there, either (and how about sharing his experiences about the debate in the “No” camp?)

From half-witted footballers shouting slogans to greasy Camoron offering the Scots a half of what they could have… the “No” campaign was little more than an insult to intellect and basic decency!

Furthermore… what kind of debate would he want?! A debate about the (im)possiblity of a currency union, which has been a high-profile topic, but one that is not only too complicated to be answered by a simple answer, but also closely related to splitting the United Kingdom national debt, which, in turn, has hardly been discussed at all?

I find it incredible, that people can read this piece and still defend the Yes camp. The trash I have read on social media and continue to read leaves me speechless. It’s almost as if this is one big game. I have not heard or read one single credible argument from the yes camp that would justify breaking up the union at this time. Do everyone a favour, go back to doing what you did before you jumped on the bandwagon of ‘fighting for freedom’…honestly, it’s embarrassing…

Honestly, that comment is embarrassing. If you haven’t found a single argument for the case of independence then you clearly haven’t wanted to find one. There are clearly both positives and negatives on both sides. Your preference is clear, however don’t bother demeaning people, valid opinions or credible viewpoints as it doesn’t do anyone any favours.

Reblogged this on K. Barclay – Confabulous and commented:
I raised mild Indy doubts twice and was immediately bombarded with what seemed like a catechism, along with insults that ranged from stupid to BritNat Loyalist… Many, lovely wonderful people were involved in Yes – but I think the division and damage has been immense and the economic benefit of separation is still doubtful.

I think some of what Ewan says is worth taking on board. I do think most of it is what happens in the course of any political campaign. I don’t think the Yes camp were Trotskyite or dragooned. I think we were locked into a binary argument…where, on both sides, every piece of evidence came down to aye we can or naw we cannae…Nuance went out the window, but i don’t think that was a conspiracy…on either side…it was playing to win. And that always simplifies arguments and fuels testosterone…I think now that binary campaign is over, we need to get out of the trenches…but it won’t happen overnight. Football by Christmas?

If the ‘yes’ vote had won where was the next splinter in Scottish politics going to start? Would it have been yes labour voters dividing from yes liberal voters? Scotland has a pre-union history of back-stabbing each other to get to the top. Being anywhere near Glasgow, on old firm day – in the day, was an indication of how fragmented Scottish politics was. Has Rangers being relegated erased all this? Scotland generally needs to import goods through England to keep shipping costs down for imports / exports, why should the RUK allow Scotland the use of its roads, adding to pollution and highway wear, when there is no benefit to the RUK?

Many Yes voters who are deluded enough to think this would have all gone smoothly if Scotland had voted for independence have been lucky to have been saved by the free-thinking pro-UK voters. The only real winner would have been President Alex Salmond. I don’t see why the Scottish political elite or Scottish corporates would have been throwing handfuls of cash to the working class folk of Scotland. It appears Glasgow was the most Pro independent area of Scotland. Maybe the less affluent areas had the least to lose with the independence vote win.